D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Edward Mannone

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

D.R. Horton, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Edward and April Mannone, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2024-002158

Appeal From Horry County
Martha M. Rivers, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-262
Submitted May 1, 2026 – Filed June 3, 2026

AFFIRMED

John T. Crawford, Jr., of Kenison Dudley & Crawford,
LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Edward and April Mannone, both of Myrtle Beach, pro
se.

PER CURIAM: D.R. Horton, Inc. (D.R. Horton) appeals the circuit court's order
affirming the magistrate court's default judgment in favor of Edward and April
Mannone (collectively, the Mannones). On appeal, D.R. Horton argues the circuit
court erred in (1) affirming the magistrate's order of default and (2) applying the
wrong standard in refusing to consider relieving D.R. Horton from default. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the circuit court did not err in affirming the magistrate's default
judgment against D.R. Horton because the company waived its claim of improper
service by failing to raise it to the magistrate. See Fassett v. Evans, 364 S.C. 42,
49, 610 S.E.2d 841, 845 (Ct. App. 2005) ("[T]he power to set aside a default
judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] whose decision
will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of that
discretion."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998)
("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must
have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate
review."). On July 1, 2024, D.R. Horton filed an answer, stating the Mannones
served them on May 9, 2024, and asserting a substantive defense to the Mannones'
warranty claim. The answer did not reference improper service or give a reason
for the untimely answer. On July 17, 2024, the magistrate held a hearing, at which
D.R. Horton appeared, and ordered D.R. Horton to pay the Mannones a default
judgment of $7,500 plus $80 in court fees. D.R. Horton appealed to the circuit
court, arguing that on May 9, 2024, the Mannones served the summons and
complaint upon two superintendents at D.R. Horton's Myrtle Beach office instead
of serving the company's registered agent, CT Corporation System. Although D.R.
Horton contends the magistrate did not allow the company to explain its untimely
answer, the magistrate's return to the circuit court appeal stated that the magistrate
specifically "inquired as to the default from D.R. Horton," but instead of
explaining the reasoning behind the untimely answer, the company "agreed
numerous times that [it] was in default." Because the evidence showed D.R.
Horton had the opportunity to raise the issue of improper service to the magistrate
and failed to do so, we hold the circuit court properly found D.R. Horton could not
then raise the issue to the circuit court. See Ex parte Trustgard Ins. Co., 442 S.C.
485, 506, 900 S.E.2d 448, 459 (Ct. App. 2023) ("The purpose of the summons is to
acquire jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and to give him notice of the
action and an opportunity to appear and defend." (quoting White Oak Manor, Inc.
v. Lexington Ins. Co., 407 S.C. 1, 8, 753 S.E.2d 537, 541 (2014))); Bakala v.
Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 629, 576 S.E.2d 156, 165 (2003) ("Objections to personal
jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, are waived unless raised.").

2. As to D.R. Horton's contention that the circuit court applied the wrong standard
when it found D.R. Horton waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by failing
to include it in the answer, we hold the argument is not preserved. See Wilder
Corp., 330 S.C. at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); Grant v. S.C. Coastal
Council, 319 S.C. 348, 356, 461 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1995) (holding a party who did
not file a motion to alter or amend an order failed to preserve its argument
regarding the order's perceived deficiencies). D.R. Horton did not raise this
argument at the hearing or in a post-trial motion. Thus, we hold this issue is not
preserved for appellate review.

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.